Where does it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?

Seems to me that the use of the same word for day, plus the mention of 'morning and evening' would indicate an identical period of time for all six days. I doubt that anyone would argue against it being a 24 hour day once the sun is present. Why then assume that that the same expression: evening and morning = day is to be understood as a different period of time from one 'day' to the next?Seems to me that Sylas is the one thinking outside the box:

quote:

---

Sylas: "The cosmological concepts used in the bible are those of the ancient world, not those of modern cosmology."

---

The firmament, according to Genesis, is placed: "In the midst of the water." Not In the midst of space. Edited to delete link to graphic located in Geocities. Yahoo won't let me link to it from here.dbThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 05-14-2004 11:39 PM

Thanks for the tip.

This is how the great Martin Luther imagined the universe described in Genesis chapter one.I have colorized a portion of old woodcut print which Luther included as the frontispiece of his first edition German language Bible in 1536 AD. This view was believed to be an accurate presentation of the Genesis narrative and was presented to combat the opinion of Copernicus, whom Luther called a "fool."While much of the Bible suggests a flat earth model, Greek influence, especially that of Aristotle, convinced most people that the earth is spherical. Note that the deity is located outside the universe in this model and depicted as the source of primeval light.dbEdited to delete link to graphic. [The link to this graphic seemed to work for a little while but is not longer functioning]This message has been edited by doctrbill, 05-15-2004 08:34 AMThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 05-15-2004 09:06 AM

This is how Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church, viewed the universe based on his understanding of the Bible. I suppose he understood it rather well, considering that he translated it to the German language.He and Copernicus were contemporaries and Martin attacked Nick and his theory at every opportunity. The amazing thing, to me, is that so few creationists are aware of that old conflict: between the biblical and Copernican cosmologies. Religionists are apparently willing to let it die through lack of visitation.db

So are automatons and the brainwashed. But that doesn't mean y'all know WassUp. Beware you never have a thought of your own, for you will be outa there bub. Why is the vacuum a problem for you? The universe is mostly emptiness; the closest thing there is to a perfect vacuum. Step out of your space ship and you'll see what I mean. The only "material of the universe" which acts upon earth to "hold it in place" is the material of the sun. But that would suggest that earth orbits the sun and the biblical authors clearly did not accept such a ridiculous idea. I couldn't agree more. Is Earth a Planet?db

If you mean because it says "heavens" then you might want to reconsider. The Hebrew word here is shamayim, same as in verse four. Unlike your version of the Bible, the King James reads, "heaven" throughout chapter one, although shamayim is rendered both ways later on - singular or plural. Heaven is the name God gives to the raqia - the firmament. Interestingly, the word heaven is not applied to the sun, moon or stars; at least not in the first chapter of Genesis. The sun, moon and stars are called Lights (maor). They are not called Heavens. And these 'lights' are placed in "the heaven"; more specifically "in the firmament of the heaven," which is to say, In the structure which supports the heaved up things. And remember, the Heaven is still where God put it just after it was made. It is in the middle of the primeval water!The infrastructural components of the Genesis universe are three in number: 1) the Heaven (firmament), which separates the water of chaos (tehom) into upper and lower regions. 2) the Earth, (dry land) which appears when when the lower water is pooled (gathered into one place). And 3) Sea, the water which is under the firmament i.e. the water under the Heaven. This tripartate infrastructure is reiterated at Exodus 20:11 as a definition of Universe, to wit: "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Revised Standard Version). Where is Heaven?db

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. Are you saying that light was made before the source of light was made? There was no 'earthly observer,' and the account purports to be a description of what actually happens. So there is no need for this mental gymnastic. Again, there was no 'observer,' and the narrative does not assume one. All of these are created on the fourth day and placed in the firmament. Above and below the firmament is the water of "the deep." The ancients did not share our concept of space (emptiness). There is some question as to whether this is actually plural or simply appears to be plural. Nonetheless, as you have pointed out, it is rendered both ways into English ("which is rendered 'heaven(s),'"). What we DO know of its etymology, is that Ouranos was the name of the Greek sky-god. The authors shows no evidence of understanding our concept of 'space.' Furthermore, the scripture plainly states that the stars are placed "in the firmament." Hereby reflecting the ancient concept of heaven above / earth beneath. You presume to know what God would do. And again >>> the universe is MOSTLY EMPTINESS. Firmament is Latin for "supportive structure." Raqia describes a hammered out piece of metal, such as a shield. Now you misquote (Accidentaly? From faulty memory?). It is WATER which is above and below the firmament (or Expanse, if you like). An interesting imagination, but NOT what the scripture says. There was no observer.I will address a portion of your cut and paste but please be advised that such should be brief and the sources credited. Two things:1). God made the firmament and then placed it in the middle of the water.2). "Water." NOT water vapor.I see two difficulties with which you are struggling:1). The first two verses are introductory. i.e - In the beginning, this is what happened ...2). Genesis is ancient science; and there is no way to make it conform to modern science.Best wishes in your search for truth.db

---

Adult Sunday School

Seems to me that the Ten Commandments are being ignored in this discussion. Exodus 20:11 states that the universe was made in six days, and God rested on the seventh day: "wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."This is the so-called: 'Sabbath Commandment.' The seventh day is the sabbath. Sabbath was held sacred from the 'evening' of the seventh day (Friday dusk) to the 'evening' of the first day (Saturday dusk). Sacrifices were burned to Jehovah 'evening and morning.' The same Hebrew expression as that found in Genesis one.Surely, to avoid confusion, the author would not have used the idiom associated with ordinary 'evenings and mornings' to describe indefinite periods of time exceeding millions of years. And if he did, then he could surely fault no one for failing to understand what he was thinking.The mistake of modern interpreters is that they are biased by modern science. The ancients did not have this option.db

This particular verse doesn't help your case very much.Firstly, the Tetragrammaton, which you like to render as 'Jehovah,' is a Hebrew term and never appears in the Greek New Testament.Secondly, Peter is commenting on the time sense of the Lord (Kyrie). He is not offerring a mathematical formula with which to interpret a mysterious timeline in Genesis.Thirdly, our discussion regards the first chapter of Genesis, and the Tetragrammaton (AKA the word 'Jehovah') does not appear in the first chapter of Genesis; not even in your NWT. And yet, you have not addressed the issue of the Ten Commandment use of the word Yom! So, is it a day for a year? Or is it a thousand years for a day? This verse offers nothing to support your premise. Better to ignore it for purposes of this particular discussion. Yes; a period of approximately 24 hours. Have you noticed that they still keep the sabbath every seventh YOM? That is one possible meaning. Seems to be the meaning at chapter 2 verse 4. Not at all. What is confusing about "keep the sabbath day holy."? Even so, we seldom fail to understand the word in context; especially if the context includes references to the evening and the morning of that same 'day.' Translation of Yom is not the problem here. The problem is accepting the scripture at face value. The problem comes with trying to force Genesis into the mold of modern science. Quibbling over the meaning of Yom, in an effort to make Creation subject to Evolution, seems to me an act of scriptural sabotage. I take it that you do not hold sacred the seventh day of the week. Be advised that the Jews did and do hold it sacred. Note that it is the seventh Day they hold sacred, not the seventh Millennium, or the seventh Epoc. No more 'loose' than our usage of the term 'day.' The question is not why but whether. And which verse mentions this "diminishing cloud cover."?You seem to have the conclusion cart ahead of the evidence horse.Would you have us believe that Jesus was in the tomb three years, or 3,000 years, or 300 million years; rather than the "three days" which the scriptures claim?db

You may be right about this. Many words of Hebrew, Greek and Latin appear in our Bibles in transliterated form. Revisionists sometimes attempt to actually translate these words; such as giving 'man,' or 'humans,' in place of 'Adam.'The Greek speaking Jews who produced, or revised, the Septuagint, gave YHWH as Kurios (a term applied to Greek emperors) because they believed it was a realistic translation. Based on my reading of the various contexts in which YHWH is found in scripture, I am inclined to accept their opinion. Besides, they were living much closer to the time when such things could be debated intelligently. Compared to them, we are pretty much working in the dark.Following are examples how YHWH is translated from Hebrew to other tongues.Latin: "Domine."
German: "Herr."
Spanish: "Senior."
English: "LORD."YHWH was more than just a personal name. The term YHWH was incorporated (in abbreviated form) into the names of Hebrew kings, apparently used as a title of office: - JEHO-Shaphat, JO-Ash, Jecon-IAH, etc. The name JEHU (king known for his chariot driving style), may be translated: "Jehovah himself." These examples suggest to me that the above mentioned translations of YHWH are reasonably accurate. So much for inerrant scripture. But how does one justify such a major revision of the "God inspired scriptures."Besides: The God by any other name is still The Diety. Don't you think?db